[Examination of Regional Differences in Performance of Health Systems by Prefecture Using Cluster Analysis].

Q3 Medicine
Hisato Nakajima, K. Yano
{"title":"[Examination of Regional Differences in Performance of Health Systems by Prefecture Using Cluster Analysis].","authors":"Hisato Nakajima, K. Yano","doi":"10.1265/jjh.19009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) pointed out the deterioration of the performance of health systems (performance) in Japan. To correct this, we evaluated the performances in different prefectures. METHODS By the OECD method, we set 27 indicators concerning \"health status (HS)\", \" risk factors (RFs)\", \" access to care (AC)\", \" quality of care (QC)\", and \" health care resources (HRs)\". Next, the relative value (RV, ±4 standard deviation) from the average value of each indicator in each prefecture was obtained. On the basis of this RV, the prefectures were divided into A, B, and C by cluster analysis. Then, the 27 indicators of the three groups were subjected to multiple comparison tests and the performances were evaluated. RESULTS A included Hokkaido, Ishikawa, Kyoto, Shimane, Okayama, Hiroshima, Yamaguchi, Tokushima, Kagawa, Ehime, Kochi, Fukuoka, Saga, Nagasaki, Kumamoto, Oita, Miyazaki, Kagoshima, and Okinawa, B included Aomori, Iwate, Akita, Fukushima, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Saitama, Tokyo, Osaka, and Wakayama, C included Miyagi, Yamagata, Gunma, Chiba, Kanagawa, Niigata, Toyama, Fukui, Yamanashi, Nagano, Gifu, Shizuoka, Aichi, Mie, Shiga, Hyogo, Nara, and Tottori. The multiple comparison test results showed that HS and RFs were not significantly different between A and C. In A, AC and QC were poor, but HRs were excessive, and the local allocation tax was high. RFs, AC, QC, HRs, and the local allocation taxes were not significantly different between B and C, but HS was poor in B. CONCLUSIONS The performance of health systems was deteriorating in the 19 prefectures included in A, and correction is necessary in these prefectures.","PeriodicalId":35643,"journal":{"name":"Japanese Journal of Hygiene","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Japanese Journal of Hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1265/jjh.19009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) pointed out the deterioration of the performance of health systems (performance) in Japan. To correct this, we evaluated the performances in different prefectures. METHODS By the OECD method, we set 27 indicators concerning "health status (HS)", " risk factors (RFs)", " access to care (AC)", " quality of care (QC)", and " health care resources (HRs)". Next, the relative value (RV, ±4 standard deviation) from the average value of each indicator in each prefecture was obtained. On the basis of this RV, the prefectures were divided into A, B, and C by cluster analysis. Then, the 27 indicators of the three groups were subjected to multiple comparison tests and the performances were evaluated. RESULTS A included Hokkaido, Ishikawa, Kyoto, Shimane, Okayama, Hiroshima, Yamaguchi, Tokushima, Kagawa, Ehime, Kochi, Fukuoka, Saga, Nagasaki, Kumamoto, Oita, Miyazaki, Kagoshima, and Okinawa, B included Aomori, Iwate, Akita, Fukushima, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Saitama, Tokyo, Osaka, and Wakayama, C included Miyagi, Yamagata, Gunma, Chiba, Kanagawa, Niigata, Toyama, Fukui, Yamanashi, Nagano, Gifu, Shizuoka, Aichi, Mie, Shiga, Hyogo, Nara, and Tottori. The multiple comparison test results showed that HS and RFs were not significantly different between A and C. In A, AC and QC were poor, but HRs were excessive, and the local allocation tax was high. RFs, AC, QC, HRs, and the local allocation taxes were not significantly different between B and C, but HS was poor in B. CONCLUSIONS The performance of health systems was deteriorating in the 19 prefectures included in A, and correction is necessary in these prefectures.
[基于聚类分析的地区卫生系统绩效差异研究]。
目的经济合作与发展组织(OECD)指出了日本卫生系统绩效的恶化。为了纠正这一点,我们评估了不同县的表现。方法采用OECD方法,设置健康状况(HS)、危险因素(RFs)、医疗可及性(AC)、医疗质量(QC)、医疗资源(HRs)等27个指标。然后,从各县各指标的平均值得到相对值(RV,±4个标准差)。在此基础上,通过聚类分析将县划分为A、B、C三个县。然后,对三组27项指标进行多次比较检验,评价其性能。结果sa包括北海道、石川、京都、岛根、冈山、广岛、山口、德岛、香川、爱媛、高知、福冈、佐贺、长崎、熊本、大分、宫崎、鹿儿岛和冲绳,B包括青森、岩手、秋田、福岛、茨城县、枥木、埼玉、东京、大阪和和歌山,C包括宫城、山形、群马、千叶、神奈川、新潟、富山、福井、山梨县、长野、岐阜、静冈、爱知、Mie、志贺、兵库县、奈良和鸟取县。多重对比检验结果显示,A和c的HS和RFs差异不显著。A的AC和QC较差,但HRs过高,地方分配税较高。B、C地区的RFs、AC、QC、HRs和地方税差异不显著,但B地区的HS较差。结论A地区19个州的卫生系统绩效不断恶化,有必要进行整改。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Japanese Journal of Hygiene
Japanese Journal of Hygiene Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信